NEWYou can now listen to PK Press Club articles!
President Donald Trump spoke out on U.S. Supreme Court cases regarding trans athletes in women’s sports, denouncing the justice system for appearing to be “fighting” so that “men can continue to play women’s sports.”
Trump told reporters at a White House news conference Tuesday that he thought judges who appeared to side with trans athlete plaintiffs should “lose a lot of credibility.”
“Big case before the Supreme Court. I mean, I can’t believe it. Some of the justices fought hard for men to be able to play women’s sports. A few of them, I can’t imagine. But I think anyone who decides that way would have to lose a lot of credibility. But we’ve banned men from playing women’s sports,” Trump said.
CLICK HERE FOR MORE SPORTS COVERAGE ON PK Press Club
Female athletes in the case speak before the U.S. Supreme Court after the justices heard arguments on challenges to state bans on transgender athletes in women’s sports, January 13, 2026, in Washington, DC. (Olivier Contreras / AFP)
“All you have to do is look at the records, the weightlifting records, the swimming records, the track and field records. It’s not fair. It’s very demeaning to women.”
Trump previously called out the judges and former President Joe Biden’s administration for its stance in favor of trans athletes in women’s sports.
“The previous administration had no idea, or they were really bad, but deep down, they had no idea. But they had a concept. I mean, they’re always trying to sell the idea of men playing women’s sports. You saw it at the Supreme Court. I mean, some of those justices were fighting for them too,” Trump said. “They were fighting for them. But you saw the other day at the Supreme Court that men playing women’s sports doesn’t work.”
The two cases heard before the Supreme Court last week focused on the question of states’ rights to pass laws banning biological males in girls’ and women’s sports. Idaho and West Virginia have each been sued by trans athletes in those states, who successfully blocked state laws aimed at protecting women’s sports. Now the Supreme Court will review both cases and issue a potentially historic decision.
Justices Kentaji Brown-Jackson and Sonia Sotomayor delivered questions and statements during the hearing that could suggest they will rule in favor of the trans athlete plaintiffs.
During the opening pleadings of the hearing, Brown-Jackson presses Idaho Solicitor General Alan Hurst on state law intended to protect girls’ and women’s sports.
“I guess I have a hard time understanding how you can say that this law doesn’t classify on the basis of transgender status,” Jackson told Hurst. “The law is expressly intended to ensure that transgender women cannot play on women’s sports teams. So why isn’t there a classification based on transgender status?”
Judge Clarence Thomas was seen slumped in his seat with his hand covering his face during this question from Brown-Jackson, as witnessed by PK Press Club Digital in the courtroom. There were other moments during the hearing where Thomas was seen in the same pose.
INSIDE SCOTUS HEARING WOULD BE A TURNING POINT IN CULTURAL WAR AGAINST TRANS ATHLETES IN WOMEN’S SPORTS
Hurst responded to Jackson, arguing that Idaho’s fairness law in women’s sports depends on the student-athlete’s gender, not transgender status.
Jackson continued to press Hurst, asking, “But this treats transgender women differently than cis women, doesn’t it?”
In another instance, Jackson asked Solicitor General of West Virginia Michael Williams has similar questions about his state’s Save Women’s Sports Act.
“There’s the overall classification — everyone has to play on a team that is the same sex at birth — but then you have a definition of gender identity that operates within that, which is a distinction, meaning that for cisgender girls, they can play consistent with their gender identity. For transgender girls, they can’t,” Jackson said.
Meanwhile, Sotomayor cited about 2.8 million people in the United States who identify as transgender and said their rights should be respected even though they make up only a small percentage of the population.
“What percentage is enough?” » asked Sotomayor. “There are 2.8 million transgender people in the United States. That’s a shockingly high number… What makes an underclass meaningful to you? Is it one percent? Five percent? Thirty percent? Fifteen percent?
“Numbers don’t speak for human beings.”
If recent rulings related to trans rights are any indication, a favorable rule for West Virginia and Idaho is still likely.
In United States v. Skrmetti, the Supreme Court, in a 6-3 vote on June 18, 2025, upheld Tennessee’s ban on certain gender-affirming medical care for minors. All of the justices voted along partisan lines, with the six conservative justices voting to uphold the ban and the three liberal justices voting against it.
But in an August 2024 decision on whether former President Joe BidenThe state administration should be granted an emergency request to enforce parts of a new rule that includes anti-discrimination protections for transgender students under Title IX, the court voted 5-4 to overturn the request.
Conservative Justice Neil Gorsuch, dissenting, agreed with the three liberal justices and the Biden administration that the lower courts’ rulings were “overbroad.”
The request would have authorized biological men in women’s restrooms, locker rooms and dormitories in 10 states where state and local rules are in place to prevent it.
CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE PK Press Club APP
Protesters gather outside the Supreme Court as it hears arguments on state laws banning transgender girls and women from playing on school sports teams, Tuesday, Jan. 13, 2026, in Washington. (AP Photo/José Luis Magana)
A decision in this case is expected no later than June.
